The Genesis of TS Resolution ‘Freedom of Thought’

The Theosophical Resolution ‘Freedom of Thought’ may be considered one of the cornerstones of Theosophical Society. It was passed in 1924 by the General Council. Let us look at the historical context, as provided by our magazine The Theosophist of that time, to find the reason and the purpose for the resolution. Initially this topic ‘freedom of thought’ was predominantly a European one. In July 1923 The Theosophist printed the address of Mr. C. Jinarajadasa (Vice President of TS International) at the Eighth Congress of TS Europe. In it he says amongst others that ‘as an international body, which is unsectarian in its Constitution, our Society cannot, without infringing the liberty of members, proclaim any dogma as obligatory upon all to believe. The sole exception is the belief in Brotherhood as the fundamental basis of mankind. We cannot, as a Society, commit all members even to a belief in Reincarnation and Karma; much less can we proclaim as a Theosophical dogma the existence of the Masters of the Wisdom...’ And he continues that ‘the Theosophical Society cannot endorse such teachings and impose them upon members as necessary for their membership in the Society. Liberty of belief is inseparable from our development as an international unsectarian organization. While the utmost freedom is given as to belief, this freedom implies that those members who desire to believe in a particular form of Theosophy have the right to do so, so long as they do not impose it as a creed upon the Society as a whole.' Two months later a letter from Mr. Eric Cronvall (General Secretary of TS Sweden) addressed to the President and General Council of TS International was printed. He is ‘looking at the general condition within our TS’ and sees ‘misunderstanding on many points’ which leads to ‘division in parties’. He is expanding that ‘if members persecute each other for their opinions, this is decidedly against the Theosophical ideal’. And further on he elaborates that ‘the democratic principle laid down in the Constitution calls for giving to everybody a fair chance and freedom of expression. Therefore, when a certain office has to be filled within TS, the right person ought to be chosen on account of ability, but not on account or adherence to any party within the TS. … It is a sad fact, that at different occasions in the past, members have left the TS because they have meant, that within the Society there was not enough room for the expressions of their opinions.’ He concludes the letter with proposing ‘that the General council of the TS should pass … decisions: A declaration, that according to the Constitution of the TS all members have an equal right to express their opinions in any matter concerning Theosophical teaching and teachers… A declaration that it is against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Bye-Laws of the TS if any member, Lodge or National Society be expelled or advised to withdraw because of opinions held or expressed concerning any Theosophical teaching or teacher. A declaration that it is in full accord with the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Bye-Laws of the TS and with the principle of brotherhood, as laid down in the first object of the TS, that every holder of office in Lodges, in National Societies, or in TS, should be chosen in the first hand on account of ability and fitness for the office, and not on account of any opinion held or expressed concerning any Theosophical teaching or teacher.’ This letter is followed by ‘a summary of a “programme” of’ him that had originally ‘appeared in the May issue of the Swedish Sectional Magazine’. This starts with the statement that it is ‘a fact that at least some members of the TS have felt, as if this liberty of thought and conscience, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, in reality has been very much curtailed’. Further on he outlines that ‘there has been a fight about the outer things, about loyalty, belief in authorities, worship of personalities’, etc. And he concludes finally that ‘all Theosophists, within the TS and outside, ought to clasp their hands in the effort to realise, truly and verily, the ideal of brotherhood, which regards as brothers not only those, who hold the same views, but that which extends to all, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, colour or opinions’. With this statement he extends our first object of TS. In the same edition Anne Besant (President of TS International) had her Comment on the Letter, i.e. Cronvall’s letter, published. And it really is more of a comment than a direct reply to the matters he raised. She is (somewhat) agreeing with him in saying that ‘if we are to have freedom of thought, different opinions will certainly show themselves… Certainly persecution for holding any opinion is untheosophical’. This is followed by a section about reasons for expelling from TS. On one side she has ‘known an attempt made to pass a bye-law that no official in the Liberal Catholic Church should hold office in the TS’. But she ‘ruled that it was incompatible with our Constitution’. On the other side ‘in Germany the movement goes forward energetically on the lines laid down by Dr. Rudolf Steiner. These differ considerably from the generally accepted Theosophical teachings’ by giving ‘primacy’ to certain ideas which not all ‘could … accept’. In this case, based on her role, she had ‘to cancel the charter … to revive it in favour of the … Lodges willing to work within the Constitution of the TS’. About members having left the TS she says that ‘if people leave a Society in which perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed by its Constitution, they leave it not because they are denied freedom, but because other members, who have a right to the same freedom, do not agree with them, and also express their opinions. … Intolerant members are always a nuisance, but unless it is proposed to add to our rules a penal regulation excluding every intolerant person, we cannot get rid of them.’ She has generally ‘no objection … to the proposed declarations’. However it seems that she is convinced they are superfluous. Most of the detailed points Cronvall is criticising she is barely touching. E.g. there is no reference at all to the ‘fight about the outer things’. Even when at the very end of his programme Cronvall is extending the first object of the TS that is ignored by Besant. Only at the end of her comment she expresses that she generally agrees with his conclusion. When reading Cronvall’s letter and Besant’s comment on it we need to keep in mind that generally only two or three much shorter letters to the editor are published in each edition of The Theosophist. So printing so much of this topic shows the importance assessed by the publisher. In the October edition a Letter to Mr. Eric Cronvall from M. Fraser (General Secretary of TS Burma) is printed. He compliments Cronvall in saying that in his ‘opinion the one fault in your letter is that you have not spoken quite plainly enough’. Further on he continues that ‘we have been told, over and over again in the past, that we need believe nothing which does not appeal to our reason, it matters not how poor our reason may be or who says we ought to believe. This has been always to me the very basis of all Theosophical teaching.’ And he expands ‘that he joined the TS on that spirit of freedom and absolute individual development which it promises’. A month later, Dossabhoy S. Dalal also comments on Cronvall’s letter too. ‘In the first place it would be well to recount here that the only belief binding on us on admission to the TS is the recognition of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity.’ He concludes his comment by saying that ‘the approaches to the One Truth are many, and foolish and ignorant indeed is he who forces on another his way of approach as the only way’. Then in December 1923, at the 48th anniversary of TS at the annual seating of the General Council in Benares, Besant touches in her presidential address this topic freedom of thought only briefly (1/2 page out of 11 pages). She summarises that she ‘printed a letter from Mr. Erik Cronvall, and also sent it to every General Secretary. He wishes to have a re-declaration from the General Council on the liberty of thought of every member of the TS. I see no objection to the passing of such resolution, if it be thought necessary. It has been declared so often; I have myself insisted on it over and over again, ad nauseam I have sometimes thought; that I do not see any object in its being repeated. But there is no valid reason against it, the members of the General Council at the Vienna Congress wished it, and at the General Council meeting yesterday, the view was accepted and will be carried out. The real remedy lies with the members themselves, if they allow themselves to be dominated by other people; they should try to develop independent thought, and a modicum of courage. At the same time, I would earnestly urge on all Theosophists, who are strong on mind and will, to avoid all appearance of pushing their views without regard to the opinions and feelings of their fellow-members, and never to arouse the idea that they are aiming at the domination of the thoughts of others.’ She then directly continues in her address with a somewhat irritating choice of words: ‘Turning now to the interesting events of the year …’ It is obvious that she clearly rates this resolution ‘Freedom of Thought’ not as highly as most of us do nowadays. In January 1924 another letter of Cronvall to the President of the Theosophical society is published. As there ‘seems to have been … some misunderstandings … I should therefore like to give some supplementary explanation’. His ‘purpose has been not to criticise in a personal and offensive way any person or any idea expressed within TS but only to state in a general way certain principles. I think that there is too often a tendency among Theosophists not to tolerate frank statements of differences in opinion’. He continues later on that in his opinion ‘at the bottom of this whole question lies the fact that we have among our members so many different types’. These ‘belong to one of two great classes, which we, for greater simplicity, might call the intellectual and the devotional type’ with ‘any shade of variety between the extremes. The difficulty lies in bringing these two main types to work harmoniously together. In order to accomplish this, we must use all of our good-will and all our wisdom…’ And once more he addresses the topic in saying that ‘the fault with people who have certain preferences in studying Theosophy is always when they show lack of tolerance. I think that a certain amount of criticism may well be compatible with tolerance…’ But he also sees the limits of this when asking the question ‘What can we do in order to give within the TS room enough for all?’, responding that ‘personally I think that, as a practical expedience, it is better that people with strongly marked differences in belief do not try to work together in such a way that they may interfere with each other’s feelings’ and concluding that as the case may be ‘it would be better to separate in all friendliness’. In the same issue of January 1924 a letter of H. Arnold is printed in which he criticises Cronvall. It ‘seems to me nothing more nor less than a veiled attack upon present heads of the TS’. He disregards Cronvall’s approach of different equally valuable types of people being interested in Theosophy by writing that ‘all earnest members should by now have passed beyond the mere intellectual stage…’ And furthermore ‘I must confess that I could better understand Mr. Cronvall’s attitude had he been a young member just come into the movement, but that a General Secretary should show such ignorance … I cannot for the life of me understand’. We then do not find anything more on this topic in the magazine. To the end of the year in December another presidential address of Besant is printed. This one is for the 49th anniversary of the TS at the annual seating of the General Council in Bombay. Her address is a little more than twice as long as the one in the year before and does not address the topic at all. She only concludes in her introduction that ‘this year, 1924, has been one of peaceful and successful activity and of useful achievements’. If we hoped to read anything later on the passing of our TS resolution Freedom of Thought and on the discussion thereof we would be disappointed. Unfortunately the records (or minutes) of this 1924 seating of the General Council have not been (made) available. This resolution is now much more valued than it was when it was passed. Many national TS sections have it on their web sites and in printed publications. Generally they do not explain the content of the resolution or the reason why they put it there. This resolution was initiated because members within TS had felt that they were required to share particular beliefs for being accepted within TS. The purpose was to liberate members from the necessity to follow certain forms of Theosophy. We see that there was – and is – reason to believe that particular beliefs or forms have been favourable at certain times. This should not happen as I am convinced we all agree. A personal question we have to ask ourselves: ‘Where do we impede on the opinion and conviction of our fellows?’ The essence of our TS resolution Freedom of Thought is that we are free to hold and live any belief we want as long as it does not interfere with our brothers’ or sisters’ beliefs!

This article has been published in the December 2011 edition of TheoSophia, the official magazine of The Theosophical Society in New Zealand

Ralf Schruba completed degrees in theology and in civil/structural engineering in Germany. He is now living in Dunedin since 2006 where he is working in an engineering consultancy. Ralf joined the local lodge rather recently and was elected its Vice President early this year. His emphasis is on linking the spiritual/theosophical tenets with our everyday’s life.